Goldy

While Jon focused solely on the WA-03 money race, Publicola brings us the numbers from WA-08, where Republican incumbent Dave Reichert reportedly raised about $350,000 in the first quarter and is sitting on about $700,000, while Democratic challenger Suzan DelBene raised $225,000 in the quarter for $840,000 cash on hand.

But in attempting to clarify these numbers, Publicola only muddles things up:

Footnote on DelBene: She spent $160,000 this quarter and has almost $400,000 in liabilities, which means she actually has about $460,000 in cash after having raised $920,000 overall. Reichert, who’s raised about $1 million overall, has over $700,000 in cash after liabilities.

Yeah, well, not really. DelBene’s “almost $400,000 in liabilities” largely refers to a $350,000 personal loan. From a financial strength perspective, whether she pays herself back or not really isn’t an issue as long as she doesn’t pay herself back until after the election.

Reichert, although lacking the resources to self-finance, similarly benefits from loans of a sort, routinely spending his campaign hundreds of thousands of dollars into debt, which he eventually pays off with money raised for the next campaign. That’s why, while raising over $1.3 million this cycle (not the “$920,000” total Publicola reports), Reichert only has $715,000 cash on hand; most of the rest of the money went to paying off last election’s debt.

So an apple to apple comparison does indeed show that DelBene currently enjoys an $839K to $715K cash on hand advantage over the incumbent. As for fundraising strength and enthusiasm, yes, DelBene’s totals are inflated by about $534K in self-financing, but that’s roughly equivalent to Reichert’s advantage in big money contributions from PACs. Overall, Reichert has raised only slightly more in individual contributions, while DelBene enjoys more individual contributors.

In other words, it looks like Reichert is facing yet another competitive challenger, as opposed to our state delegation’s other seven incumbents, who by comparison, all currently enjoy a better than five to one money advantage over their closest opponent.

No, actually, Washington State Attorney General Rob McKenna isn’t filing a lawsuit challenging President Barack Obama’s executive order mandating that all U.S. hospitals that accept Medicare/Medicaid funding (and that’s pretty much all of them) must extend visitation and other rights to same-sex couples, but if he was intellectually consistent, he would. I mean, how is this legally different from the HCR Medicaid mandates that McKenna disingenuously claims exceed the fed’s constitutional authority under the Commerce Clause and the Tenth Amendment?

Or does McKenna only spend our state tax dollars on constitutional challenges to federal laws and regulations that he finds politically advantageous to challenge? In which case, a little free political advice to McKenna: considering the homophobic bent of the Republican primary voters you are clearly attempting woo, perhaps you should take the lead and file a lawsuit challenging the same-sex visitation mandate?  I guarantee you it would make you a star on Fox News, and rake in hundreds of thousands of dollars in contributions from hateful homophobes nationwide.

Goldman Sachs has been charged with fraud:

The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged Goldman Sachs with defrauding investors by allegedly “misstating and omitting key facts” in the marketing of a financial product linked to the performance of subprime mortgages right as the housing crisis was beginning to unfold.

Essentially, Goldman made billions selling mortgage backed “collateralized debt obligations” (CDO’s), without informing investors that the hedge fund creating these shoddy securities was heavily shorting them in anticipation of their failure.

Which I suppose explains why Republicans so vehemently oppose Wall Street regulatory reform.

Gee… look at the company Dave Reichert keeps.

Teabaggers are rallying in cities across the nation today, while non-crazy folks are busily writing checks and rushing to the post office. Why? Well, it’s my birthday of course!

And since it’s my birthday, I’m going to use the opportunity to launch a long-delayed and much needed fund drive.

Indeed, it’s been two years since I last made a public plea for donations, not because I didn’t need the cash, but because I didn’t know how long I would continue blogging, and I didn’t want to take your money and run. But my finances are now edging from precarious to ruinous, so here’s the deal.

Two years ago I set a rather ambitious target of $6,000, and you all came through. It was both amazing and incredibly gratifying, but… well that’s not even enough to cover a couple months of expenses.

So this time I’m asking for $25,000.

Yeah, I know, that seems like an awful lot of money for a local political blogger to raise, but it’s not much to live on, and $25K plus a few thousand more in advertising revenue may just be enough to get me through the end of the year, or at the very least, the November election. And if I can’t raise that kinda money, well then, I suppose I’ll just have to move on.

The kinda blogging I do is a full time job, but frugal as I am, I have fixed expenses — mortgage, insurance, utilities, food, teenage daughter and all that — and I just can’t afford to continue doing this without something approaching a full time income. Hell, I’m 47 years old, and aside from the equity in my house and a few shares of Apple in my IRA, my retirement plans consist of setting myself out to sea on an ice floe.

I don’t mean this as a threat or a complaint, it’s just simple economic reality. So I’m asking you my readers, and all the progressive and Democratic organizations, activists, candidates and consultants who have benefited from my tireless efforts and my obnoxiously fearless and uniquely effective media presence, to either keep HA going… or… well… I suppose you could offer me a job.

If you believe, as I do, that I provide an invaluable service that simply can’t be replaced by any other media outlet or progressive organization, than please give as generously as you can. Those readers who can only afford twenty or thirty bucks, I understand. But those of you who routinely spend hundreds or even thousands of dollars a year on progressive candidates and causes — and there are many of you amongst my fans — I need that same sort of financial support if I’m going to continue in my present role.

Can we meet this $25,000 target? I don’t know. Certainly not without some big checks from institutional sponsors and wealthy donors. But if we can’t meet this goal, then I’ll just have to move on.

So please click on the Donate button below and show your support, or drop me an email or phone call if you want to discuss some more creative sponsorship options. I passionately love blogging, and am profoundly grateful for the encouragement and support I’ve received these past six years. But unfortunately love, passion and gratitude don’t pay the bills.

At a town hall meeting last week, after being asked about the possibility of going to jail for failing to buy health insurance, U.S. Tom Coburn (R-OK) warned the audience not to believe everything they hear, explaining “That makes for good TV news on FOX but that isn’t the intention.”

This of course got Fox host Bill O’Reilly’s undies in a knot, who castigated Coburn the other day, insisting that he “find one person on Fox News who told this audience that they would go to jail if they don’t buy health insurance.”

Well, Kate Pickert at Time Magazine’s Swampland blog took up the challenge, and who was the first person she found to spread this lie on Fox News? None other than our own Rep. Dave Reichert.

Ironically, Reichert himself recently went out of his way to warn supporters not to question the lies they hear on TV or read online:

“Don’t believe everything you hear. Find out the truth. And I’ll tell you why it’s so important to find out the truth. Because it has to do with keeping this country free. It has to do with keeping our country, our freedom. It has to do with us having that responsibility and gaining that knowledge. It will keep us free, because there are people who want to divide us. And we all know that a house divided will fall. And if we let ourselves become divided this country will fail, and for that and for the future of our children and our grandchildren we cannot allow it to happen.”

Which I guess is about the most useful advice we’ve heard from Reichert in while.

In an opinion piece published in the National Law Journal, Prof. Timothy Stoltzfus Jost of Washington and Lee University School of Law argues that the attorneys general lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is so frivolous, that the attorneys involved should be sanctioned, and made personally liable for paying the legal expenses of the federal government in defending itself.

This complaint not only represents shockingly shoddy lawyering but should be recognized by the courts for what it in fact is: A pleading whose key claims are without support in the law and the facts. The attorneys who brought this case — solely for political purposes — should have to bear personally the cost of defending this litigation that they are imposing on federal taxpayers.

Read the whole thing. Prof. Jost not only succinctly lays out the flaws in the attorneys’ constitutional arguments, but in their factual pleadings as well. The law simply doesn’t do what Rob McKenna and his cohorts claim it does. It’s kinda stunning.

But if the attorneys might be held liable for bearing the legal costs imposed on federal taxpayers, shouldn’t McKenna also be personally responsible for covering the legal costs he’s imposing on state taxpayers?

His office keeps trying to make the argument that the only cost to the state will be McKenna’s own time spent on the case… but of course it relentlessly makes this argument on the public dime. And now we learn that due to McKenna’s conflict of interest, the state will have to hire an outside attorney to represent Gov. Gregoire in her efforts on behalf of Washington citizens to oppose his lawsuit.

All this costs money. And if McKenna’s lawsuit is as legally frivolous as Prof. Jost says it is, I sure hope Gov. Gregoire has her attorney sue McKenna to recover the legal fees incurred.

So, even a narrow win in yesterday’s special election to replace Rep. Robert Wexler in FL-19 would have spelled electoral trouble for Democrats nationally, but a comfortable Democratic win is entirely meaningless…?

“A closer race would’ve added to Democratic paranoia about their chances this fall, but the fact that Deutch performed close to the average for a Democrat in the district does not lessen the fact that nationally, GOPers are still likely to enjoy big gains in the general election,” said Tim Sahd, editor of Washington-based House Race Hotline.

Funny how it works out that way, huh? Democratic victories in special elections — even pickups — are ignored by the pundits as foregone conclusions or outliers, whereas Republican victories are hailed as precursors of an electoral earthquake.

Seems to me that our media has something invested in creating a little drama this fall.

Bad news for Republicans hoping to ride a wave of economic discontent into office this November:

A flurry of reports out Wednesday suggested that many Americans are feeling better about the economic rebound.

Retail spending rose sharply and more than expected. Consumer inflation remains all but invisible. Businesses are boosting their stockpiles in anticipation of higher shopper demand.

Still, it’s not all gloom and doom for the Prefers GOP Party. While most economists expect a sustained recovery, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke cautioned that it would not have “enough strength to quickly reduce unemployment much.” That leaves plenty of opportunity for Republicans to exploit the well-justified anxiety of the job-insecure… which perhaps explains why they’re so eager to exacerbate this suffering by opposing an extension of unemployment benefits.

After six years of watching me bask in the fame and fortune of bloggery, my mother has decided that it’s time for her voice to be heard on the pressing issues of the day, sending the following Letter to the Editor, printed today in the Philadelphia Inquirer:

Who benefits from charter schools?

My friend, a dedicated, enthusiastic, and highly regarded guidance counselor for 15 years in the Philadelphia School District, has decided to look for a new job. Her school, which she loves, is becoming a charter school. Why in the midst of revelations of mismanagement and fraud is the city establishing at least nine more charter schools and displacing up to 200 teachers, and why does my friend want no part of it?

Charter school staff earn less than comparable staff in public schools. Could these be the real reason that the government is pushing charter schools? Yes, charter schools have the ability to exclude troublesome students and to insist on parental participation. If traditional public schools could exclude students and mandate parent involvement, then they, too, might see improved standardized test scores.

As we funnel money away from traditional public schools to charter schools, we leave our most vulnerable students behind, and see quality teachers fleeing. I ask, who is really benefiting?

Sylvia Goldstein Salvat

Merion

I couldn’t agree more, although I’d add at least one more cynical reason as to why Republicans, at least, support charter schools and vouchers: they want to destroy public education so as to destroy the public teachers unions.

Which brings me to a curious observation. Cynical as I am, I couldn’t help but read my mother’s letter with a cynic’s eye, and wonder how I, as a snarky blogger, might belittle her letter, were I on the other side of the issue. And what immediately jumped out at was the phrase “Could these be the real reason…?”

“Hah!” the righty critic might exclaim. “Learn how to write proper English before pontificating about education!”

Only problem is, that’s not what my mother, a retired Philadelphia school teacher herself, wrote. The Inquirer edited her letter and inserted the error. Here’s the original text my mother emailed me the other day:

My friend, a dedicated, enthusiastic, and highly regarded Guidance Counselor for 15 years in the Philadelphia School District, has decided to look for a new job. Her school, which she loves, is becoming a charter school. Why in the midst of revelations of mismanagement and fraud is the city establishing at least nine more charter schools and displacing up to 200 teachers, and why does my friend want no part of it? Charter school staff earn less than comparable staff in public schools, they have no pension (what a savings for the city and state!), and no union representation. Could these be the real reasons that the government is pushing charter schools? Yes, charter schools have the ability to exclude troublesome students and to insist on parental participation. If traditional public schools could exclude students and mandate parent involvement then they too might see improved standardized test scores as some charter schools report.

As we funnel money away from traditional public schools to charter schools, we leave our most vulnerable students behind, and see quality teachers  fleeing. I ask, who is really benefitting?

Sure, the Inquirer did a reasonable job breaking my mother’s letter up into smaller paragraphs, but look at what they chose to excise in the process. My mother’s stated “reasons” the government is pushing charter schools…

Charter school staff earn less than comparable staff in public schools, they have no pension (what a savings for the city and state!), and no union representation.

In the Inquirer’s editor’s hands became one “reason”….

Charter school staff earn less than comparable staff in public schools.

A much less compelling argument, that fails to document the district’s anti-union bias. Then the editors merely dropped the “s” from the word “reasons” while lazily forgetting to transform “these” into “this.”

Huh. Perhaps the Inquirer’s editor is a graduate of one of those charter schools? Or perhaps this is just the kind of editorial sloppiness that comes from being so hasty to cover up the inherent anti-union bias of the charter school movement?

There’s a raccoon in my garage. Actually, four of them: a mother and three, hairless newborn babies.

Very cute, but raccoons nonetheless, and raccoons can be nasty, and thus a threat to both our dog and our cat, not to mention my daughter and myself.

It’s not much of a garage so to speak, just a rotting, ivy-covered shed with most of the roof missing, barely big enough to fit a Model T, and we don’t use it for much more than storing a ladder and a few yard tools. So the raccoons aren’t really in our way or anything, tucked into a corner of an aging loft I haven’t had the nerve to step foot on in years. But still, they’re there. For at least three days now.

I suggested calling animal control, but my daughter says no, as they’ll only kill them, and she’s not much into killing cute looking things.

What would you do?

Yet more teabaggers who haven’t gotten the message to tone down the crazy:

Frustrated by recent political setbacks, tea party leaders and some conservative members of the Oklahoma Legislature say they would like to create a new volunteer militia to help defend against what they believe are improper federal infringements on state sovereignty.

Tea party movement leaders say they’ve discussed the idea with several supportive lawmakers and hope to get legislation next year to recognize a new volunteer force. They say the unit would not resemble militia groups that have been raided for allegedly plotting attacks on law enforcement officers.

“Is it scary? It sure is,” said tea party leader Al Gerhart of Oklahoma City, who heads an umbrella group of tea party factions called the Oklahoma Constitutional Alliance. “But when do the states stop rolling over for the federal government?”

Imagine. Anti-federalist violence. In Oklahoma City of all places. Who’d a thunk?

I gotta admit, there’s a part of me that hopes they do form their secessionist militia, and do manage to provoke an armed confrontation with the U.S. military. (You know, the small part of me that values irony over human life.)

It’s disturbing to admit it, but on at least one subject, GOP state Sen. Don Benton and I think alike:

Washington state Sen. Don Benton says he doesn’t expect Republican Dino Rossi to enter the race for U.S. Senate this year, citing his personal friendship with the two-time gubernatorial candidate.

Benton, who has already entered the race against Sen. Patty Murray on the Republican side, told POLITICO Monday: “Dino’s a good friend of mine. I’ve talked to him many times. I don’t believe Dino would allow me to sacrifice my family time and my business if he was going to run for U.S. Senate. “

“If he had serious plans, I really believe he would have told me that,” Benton said. “I just don’t see it.”

Yeah, I know, the conventional wisdom is that Rossi wouldn’t be going through all this public preening if he weren’t at least seriously considering a run for the U.S. Senate, but like Benton, I  just don’t see it, and for many of the same reasons:

“He doesn’t have any money in the bank, he doesn’t have any money raised. He doesn’t have the foundation. The talent pool is pretty much committed for this election cycle. It’s too late for him to become a viable candidate in this race…”

Of course, with only $130,000 dollars in the bank, little statewide name ID, and almost zero support from his own party’s establishment, it’s pretty much “too late” for Benton to become a viable candidate as well, but that shouldn’t detract from his appraisal of Rossi’s own bleak senatorial prospects. Sen. Patty Murray would be a difficult target even in a red wave election, and while there’s no reason to suspect this won’t be a painful midterm for congressional Democrats, the generic polling just doesn’t show a tsunami on the horizon.

Yes, Rossi’s fundraising prowess and name ID could at least make this contest a race, hence the NRSC’s aggressive recruitment, but barring a double-dip recession or some other dramatic shift in the political climate, he’d still be little more than a sacrificial lamb. The NRSC is looking for a candidate who can draw Democratic money, energy and focus into Washington state and out of contests where Republicans have a better shot at making gains — the 50-state strategy, and all that — and Rossi would play that role well. But it’s not at all clear that Rossi is selfless enough to sacrifice his own political career for the greater good of his beloved Prefers GOP Party.

“I said, ‘Hey Dino, you know as long as you’re in limbo, it does make it a little more difficult for those of us out here doing this,’” Benton recalled. “He said, ‘I’m sorry for that, but I’m on nobody’s timetable but my own.’”

Not exactly the sentiment of a guy willing to take one for the team. And as for the “timetable” Rossi’s on, I’m still guessing it’s for an express bus to the 2012 gubernatorial campaign.

That would explain Rossi’s months-long political striptease, for while the clock’s quickly running out on a serious 2010 challenge, all this hemming and hawing only serves to keep Rossi’s name in the news and in front of voters in advance of one last shot at the governor’s mansion. And it would also account for Attorney General Rob McKenna’s inexplicable public lurch to the right, for how else to explain McKenna willfully ripping that carefully crafted mask of moderation from his face, if not to position himself for gubernatorial primary battle against Rossi?

Rossi ran for governor for nearly five years straight, and now he’s contemplating an impulse run for U.S. Senate? I don’t think so. He’s raised no money, he’s hired no consultants and he’s assembled no staff. In fact, his usual cast of staffers and advisors are already committed to other candidates and races. So a last minute run at Murray would just strike me as somewhat out of character.

And foolhardy. Murray is no pushover, and she not only enjoys enthusiastic support from our state’s Democratic majority, her well-earned reputation for both bringing home the bacon and defending our state’s economic interests has endeared her to business interests who more typically find themselves in the Republican camp. Hell… I even think Murray stands a good shot at winning the Seattle Times endorsement… even in a head to head with Rossi.

So yeah, I’m with Benton on this one. I just don’t see it.

I just finished answering a rather lengthy opinion poll conducted by McGuire Research out of their Las Vegas office, and while the woman on the other end was awfully nice, I couldn’t stop chuckling at the some of the questions, as well as the fact that she continually referred to Sen. Patty Murphy. It was also rather amusing when she got to the section reading back statements of what some of Dino Rossi’s critics had said of him, and two of them could have been lifted directly from my blog.

But the best part was when I not only answered questions on health care reform, but went on to elaborate when the pollster expressed surprise. For example, she didn’t know that HCR eliminated pre-existing conditions, or that it didn’t cover 100% of all Americans, or that it didn’t reduce Medicare benefits. Now she does.

Anyway, needless to say, Sen. Murray came out on top with at least one respondent.

I just got finished listening to 25 minutes of Rep. Dave Reichert recorded at his recent campaign kickoff fundraising breakfast, and from his rambling, pointless and incoherent speech, one might think his head injury was more serious than was first let on… that is, if we didn’t already know Reichert for his rambling, pointless and incoherent speeches.

In fact, what’s most striking about Reichert’s comments is not what he says, but what he doesn’t say. Mostly he talks about his head injury, his hospitalization and his hair, with a sprinkling of platitudes about how he stands with Americans and for freedom. But what he doesn’t talk about are any issues. Nothing about the economy, nothing about unemployment, nothing about the environment or immigration or  Wall Street regulatory reform or any of the many other problems we send our representatives to the other Washington to solve.

In fact, the only policy issue Reichert even remotely addresses is health care, and even then, only to regale his audience with tales of his own brush with our health care system, and to reassure them that he took advantage of every opportunity he had to vote against extending health care access to millions of under- and uninsured Americans.

Speaking of which, here is a clip of one of the biggest crowd pleasers of the morning, an anecdote where he compares the removal of medical tape to waterboarding:

[audio:http://horsesass.org/wp-content/uploads/Reichert-Torture.mp3]

Hey, I was tortured while I was at the hospital. Uh, have you ever been in the hospital they put this tape on , for IVs and stuff like that. They use super glue. You know that? I’m not kidding. It’s super glue. I had six IVs: one on the top of my left hand, one on the top of my right, one in each wrist and one on each elbow, and they use super glue.

And uh, so when I’m being released, you know, they got to rip this stuff off. I mean I think I’m tough… am I tough Jon? I thought I was tough. The guy told me, the nurse came in and said, “Hey this is going to hurt.” I said okay, I think I can handle that. And he goes rip. And I go “Holy —!”  Sorry. I said, then he goes, he goes, “I’m sorry.” Yeah right, so he does another rip and I said “Shit…!” You know, I say “Why don’t you just water-board me? What do you want to know? I’ll tell you anything you want to know!”

That’s a joke everybody. I mean, if anybody’s got, if you got your, you got your little video phone or somehow, and post this on Google… I’m against torture. Except if you’re in the hospital, I guess it’s the same. Yeah that hurts, man I’ll tell ya.

So I guess there was a policy statement in there after all, as I suppose we can deduce from this anecdote that Reichert apparently believes that waterboarding is indeed torture. But then, he also believes that ripping off a Band-Aid is torture too, and he’s not afraid to say so, even at the risk of somebody posting it “on Google.”

Oh man… can’t get enough of those torture jokes. Hah, hah!